76 comments:

Well what good is throwing taxpayer dollars around if a federal bureaucrat can't steer it to the cronies and supporters he wants it thrown to in complete disregard of the taxpayers who earned the money in the first place?

The Politico reports that in 1992, our future POTUS was in Bali for one month to write his memoir that would later (in 2006) propel him to the Senate and then WH.

How do people plan to go to a recluse site and write books? I know many Professors do that. Do you take your library resources with you? Does the planning for the such sites takes months in advance?

Does this activity (ie, going to Bali) show an intellectual strength that no other POTUS has had? This is that it was his intent that the resulting book would help him in future career. Remember he always wanted to be POTUS.

I am impressed, very impressed. I am not a bit surprised that in 1992, he had a vision of the WH.

NB: Bush knows the GOP is finished. GOP will lose the House, the Senate is already lost, and forget about the WH.

"complete disregard of the taxpayers who earned the money in the first place?"

It's just a failure in messaging. If the voters would just try harder to understand their betters in the administration they would see the superior wisdom of this plan. How inspiring it is to see a president who showers his gifts on the ungrateful heartland whether they like it or not.

Another exposed act by the Obama Regime to lie , lie, and lie until the American people are finished off. Total slush fund waste is mandated or else. It is time to expose Dur Kenyan Fuhrer and his fascist minions for what they really are.

The Politico reports that in 1992, our future POTUS was in Bali for one month to write his memoir

I know its o/t, but I really kind of hope someone asked him about that on this trip.

His 1992 trip is one of those weird "Obama's past is a mystery" stories. Sometimes it's reported Michelle went with him to Bali. Sometimes it's reported he went alone. Sometimes it's reported he went in early 1993. He was a newly married man at the time, and had already taken time at remote cabin to write the book, which was long overdue.He was also newly hired at the University of Chicago. He was hired with the understanding that he would be given an office to write- not for the University- but his book. When he still could not complete the book, he was granted a leave from UofC to go to Bali.

Cheering him on all along was Michelle's boss, Valerie Jarrett.All very weird.

"It is time to expose Dur Kenyan Fuhrer and his fascist minions for what they really are."

It's truly the last opportunity for Republicans to tell these corrupt Democrats to go fuck themselves.

Look ... the Federal government has offices scattered throughout the state of Wisconsin: I'd suggest a $10 billion tax on those rents ... due and payable immediately by ONLY the Secretary of Transportation under felony evasion of state taxes penalties.

Put that tax cheating fuck in jail if he doesn't send the check by next Tuesday.

Two can play their fucking games and it's high time Republicans start understanding that it's a war they are waging against us.

I'd send Barack Obama a message too: Don't bring your ass back to Wisconsin or we'll pull your motorcade over for a "safety inspection" and you will find yourself being frisked by the side of the highway.

President Barack Obama's $814 billion economic stimulus plan includes funding to create a high-speed train network across the country.

a big fib that makes it sound like a small portion of Porkulus funds high speed rail coast to coast instead of just pissing away billions on demonstration segments using incompatible rail standards and train types.

I say this as a son of a 40 year railroad worker (WP). I'm taking my wife to Denver soon so we can right the Zephyr to Sacramento.

The high speed rail for Ohio is as stupid a project as there comes. The trip is slower than by car, leaves you with no form of transportation once you arrive and will require taxpayer subsidies forever.

As far as Ohio is concerned, nice to see Kasich (I was proud to vote for him) wanting to use that money for something useful (imagine that!. The cowpaths that are used for roads in this state are a disgrace.

And Walker appears to be just finding this out, that the funds earmarked specifically for this rail project cannot be used for anything else. No worries, New York and Illinois said they would gladly accept the funds.

The focus is always on the quid pro quo between elected politicians and direct/immediate beneficiaries of projects like this, but I wonder how many dinners/vacations/speaking engagements/cash-in-the-freezer goes to both appointed and permanent members of the administrative class?

Seriously, the same money spent on roads would probably benefit more semi-skilled laborers than would money spent on high-speed rail (which pretty much by definition is high-tech and less labor-intensive than materiel-intensive.)

If the point is to pump money into local economies, as opposed to global economic entities, I'd have to opt for good old-fashioned shovel-intensive road building and maintenance.

Ray La Hood is a corrupt Republican from Illinois. He was a close aide to corrupt politician Dennis Hastert. All our politicians in Illinois are bipartisan when it comes to corruption. We had one honest Senator,Peter Fitzgerald (r), he was run out after one term, he couldn't even get an endorsement. from the corrupt head of the Illinois Republican party, Judy Topinka. Fitzgerald's seat was won eventually by Honest Abe Obama.

And Walker appears to be just finding this out, that the funds earmarked specifically for this rail project cannot be used for anything else. No worries, New York and Illinois said they would gladly accept the funds.

Why do conservatives hate trains? This is so strange. How did trains get to be ideological? Because they save energy?

Republicans: Proud Defenders of waste.

I can't speak to the Wisconsin line, but I'm very familiar with Cleveland and Columbus.

Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinatti are already connected by a fairly low traffic interstate highway, I-71. With a car, you can travel between the cities at a solid 70 mph average. None of the cities have strong local public transit systems, Columbus in particular doesn't have any local rail. All three cities are the epitome of suburban sprawl; no one lives in Cleveland proper besides the extreme poor, and no one lives in Columbus proper except politicians and OSU students.

There is very little reason to travel between the three cities unless you're an Ohio politician, and even if you are, it's easier to go by car so you can travel to the appropriate suburb when you get there.

As an Ohio resident I am hoping this is an area in which we can see the first steps of bipartisanship. The Democrats want to see stimulus money spending to lower unemployment. The Republicans want to spend the money on higher priority transportation projects.

FLS wrote: "The IRS estimates the round trip costs a taxpayer $90 when all the expenses of car ownership are considered."

Yes, but the IRS is not buying the $66 round trip ticket, nor is the IRS considering the expenses of choochoo train building and operation into the "real" cost of the $66 ticket.

Alpha: Conservatives love choochoo trains that pay for themselves. Choochoo's carbon footprints are enormous by the way when taking into account the cost of producing the cars, steel rails, operations, fuel, etc. But those are things that just happen to economics challenged liberals.

I heard a piece of an interview yesterday with Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz. He was asked a question regarding the location of stops at the other end of the line, in Milwaukee. His response was that he didn't know where those stops would be and that he wasn't responsible for that end of the line.

It took me a second before I grasped the significance of this confession: How can you argue for the viability of a rail line when you don't even know where the line goes?

These people have not done a careful analysis of this project. It's just a religion for them.

Some on the left seem to think this rail line will provide an affordable mode of daily transportation to the huddled masses. In reality, except for a few affluent business people, the only people who will benefit from this boondoggle are lefties who want to feel “European” for a day. Unless, of course, you believe low skilled factory workers in Milwaukee will be able to afford the daily $66 roundtrip commute to their new high paying jobs in Madison.

But yes, if we nee to spend $800 Billion, let's spend it on the fantasy train. No sense using it on something that every person in the state either directly or indirectly relies on (roads and bridges). No sense using it on improving the sewage system of the state’s major metropolitan area that pumps billions of gallons of poop into lake Michigan every time a substantial rainfall occurs. No, the train makes perfect sense. Just think of all the revenue it will generate in latte sales alone.

Trains are incredibly efficient in terms of energy used for tons transported, and superb in being low polluting. But trains work best with freight. More passenger trains interfere with freight operations, making them less effective. Planes are better than trains for any trip over 500 miles. Cars are better for shorter trips: just getting to and from the stations require some transportation.

Perhaps leftist like trains because they despise the freedom given to individuals with cars. Or they despise cars because being in a car makes some people happy, and leftist are so miserable they don't want others to be happy.

Ray LaHood and the nanny statists at at DOT are assholes. Semi truck accidents have been declining for years, but he and his cronies keep whipping up hysteria about "distracted driving." MADD has also gotten involved and are proposing ruinous rules to the trucking industry, IN THE MIDDLE OF A RECOVERY.

Why do conservatives hate trains? This is so strange. How did trains get to be ideological? Because they save energy?

Republicans: Proud Defenders of waste.

Throwing money to freight rails to increase the speed of Amtrak or proposing HSR between cities that don't warrant it (Little Rock and Dallas?) is the waste here.

Union Pacific is currently demanding half a billion federal dollars just to make the "Sunset Limited" a daily train from LA to New Orleans. They don't want it getting in the way of their freight business (which is enviro-friendly, btw) and are shaking down the govt to do it. The shake-down will go the other way when they accept the money.

It's asinine to put HSR on freight tracks in any manner. If we're going to have HSR then build HSR, not a 90-100 mph Amtrak.

Joe: The Freight trains are low polluting, compared to trucks, in terms of tons moved per hour per mile per gallon of fuel. I am not aware of fuel efficiency of passenger rail, but considering how much people weigh, I'm willing to bet that passenger trains are not fuel efficient for routes over 500 miles. My guess from your response is that high speed rail in Europe is high polluting.

Joe: The Freight trains are low polluting, compared to trucks, in terms of tons moved per hour per mile per gallon of fuel. I am not aware of fuel efficiency of passenger rail, but considering how much people weigh, I'm willing to bet that passenger trains are not fuel efficient for routes over 500 miles. My guess from your response is that high speed rail in Europe is high polluting.

Further, scheduled passenger rail goes whether the train is full or near empty. Freight trains go when full, or those empty cars are left behind. (Except for dead heading, of course.)

A.C. McCloud: The capitalist countries had far less pollution than their socialist counter parts. Further, capitalist see pollution as waste: heat transporting substances going up the chimney cost profits. While I would agree with reasonable pollution requirements, the EPA goes too far. And another entrepreneur can find a less polluting, more efficient method, and put the polluter out of business. Unless the first guy is working crony capitalism, where he gets the government to create obstacles for competition.

How can you argue for the viability of a rail line when you don't even know where the line goes?

The siting of the downtown terminal will not make or break the project. Recall that the world's first transcontinental railroad didn't make it all the way to San Francisco, and hasn't to this day. Yet millions of people have ridden on it since 1869.

Few people remember that the transcontinental was funded though US government bonds, and was begun in the middle of the Civil War, which surely should have been a priority, both for resources and attention.

As I understand it, the 90 mph train in Wisconsin will ride on its own tracks, not shared with freight. What the situation will be in Ohio I do not know.

The siting of the downtown terminal will not make or break the project. Recall that the world's first transcontinental railroad didn't make it all the way to San Francisco, and hasn't to this day. Yet millions of people have ridden on it since 1869.

Oh good grief.

When the transcontinental railroad was completed in 1869, the alternative to taking the train was to take the stage coach. Or you could take a ship around Cape Horn. The railroad was a huge INCREASE in convenience, even you had to negotiate the last few miles via other means.

Contrast that with today, when taking the train is a DECREASE in convenience compared to the personal car.

Few people remember that the transcontinental was funded though US government bonds, and was begun in the middle of the Civil War, which surely should have been a priority, both for resources and attention.

Indeed, I can't imagine why the government would want to cement ties to a distant state with a nascent secessionist movement just after a number of other states seceded from the Union. Such misplaced priorities they had back then!

@FLS, I realize that you and I are both train buffs, but for the life of me I can't see why you are so hung up passenger trains. They don't make sense for most of the intercity travel that Americans do.

Does this activity (ie, going to Bali) show an intellectual strength that no other POTUS has had? This is that it was his intent that the resulting book would help him in future career. Remember he always wanted to be POTUS.

I am betting you spent many youthful days with tubes of Testors jammed in your nostrils.Not to mention easily impressed by someone who wanted to be POTUS and came up TU short.

Why do conservatives hate trains? This is so strange. How did trains get to be ideological? Because they save energy?

Why do libel-rals hate logic? Your postulate is beyond dimwitted. This seems to be the domain of the libel-ral, turn every objection into some form of hate. Most of us grew out of this stage. You and your kind apparently have not.

It's not that I hate trains; quite the contrary. NYC couldn't function without the subway. Also, heavy rail is extremely cost-effective for moving time-insensitive freight.

The questions about the high-speed rail lines all revolve around economics; what number of riders at what cost per rider at what frequency pays for the thing? Utilization projections for other projects that have been proposed tend to be far too low to justify the costs, and that's just how it is.

Quick aside: Click here for for official PDF discussing the economic benefits of Wisconsin High Speed Rail. Interestingly, it starts not with actual projected benefits, but by implying that numbers can't be assigned beforehand because, gosh darnnit, it's just gonna be a game changer:

In 1954, President Eisenhowernever could have imagined howthe Interstate Highway Systemwould impact America’s economiccompetitiveness. Initially conceivedof as a national defense strategy,these efficient connections betweenpeople and goods quickly changedthe way we live. The foresight toinvest in transportation networksfueled the boom that establishedthe United States as a globaleconomic leader in the 20th century.

(Actually, I imagine Eisenhower had a very good idea what economic benefits would come from the Interstate system, having seen first-hand how effective the Autobahn was for moving materiel in Germany. In peacetime, the ability to move materiel efficiently is key to reducing costs to business, and Eisenhower was no dummy.)

The PDF goes on to talk about jobs (both in construction and in operation), about how many people are in the area of the proposed network, about increasing tourism (!) but not a single mention of the continuing cost per rider mile.

Now, back to some rough analysis: According to Google, the driving distance from station to station on the proposed line is about 77 miles, and the estimated driving time is 1:29. Assuming the average customer will make the round trip 4 times a week (I'm balllparking that most users will be 5-day-a-week commuters, with a smaller percentage from "tourism, etc." passengers) that's about 600 driving miles and 12 driving hours per week. Now, assuming average car MPG at 20, that's 30 gallons of gas per rider per week, which at current prices means about $90 a week. (We could also use the IRS deduction number, which is .50/mile this year, to get a number of $300/week - which effectively means the government heavily subsidizes business driving. We are also just blowing off car pooling.)

(The most attractive benefit of a 90 MPH train on the route is it saves the average commuter an hour/day commute time, but that's ONLY if walking distance from station to destination is minimal; otherwise there's the additional commutes from home to station and from station to destination, with associated added times and costs.)

Just for grins, let's more than double the $90 and say it costs the average rider $200 to commute to and from Milwaukee to Madison four times a week. That means $50/day, or $25 one-way is our target number, neglecting the loss of per-mile deductions because the tickets themselves will probably be deductable as well.

So, how many riders/day does the system need in order to support a $25 per trip price point? To put that pricing and utilization in some perspective, a monthly Amtrak pass from NYC to Philadelphia (along Amtrak's busiest corridor) currently costs $1,242, which assuming 25 round trips a month comes out to just shy of $50, or $25/trip. Bingo!

Frankly, I don't see the Madison-to-Milwaukee line being nearly as heavily utilized as the Northeast corridor. That means in order to reach a magic $25/trip for regular commuters, somebody will have to subsidizing the line for the foreseeable future.

As a fiscal conservative, I'm just not into the idea of my paying extra taxes so latte-sippers in Wisconsin can commute from the idyllic city of Madison to the economic hub of Milwaukee.

So that's why conservatives hate commuter rail. If you can't make it make economic sense, we're just not going to buy into all the sunshine and unicorns that are trotted out instead.

That it needs a government program is prima facie evidence that the high speed rail program does not make economic sense. If it did make economic sense, private parties would already have bought the easement, built the rail lines, published the schedules, bought the cars, and hired the drivers and mechanics.

And don't worry, the TSA will arrange to strip search and recreationally molest rail commuters too.

Before World War II Eisenhower was part of an Army Division driving somewhere for a trip of some duration. He was appalled at how long it took and what a burden it was for every vehicle to stop at every light and stop sign. The National Highway System was meant for military purposes. To that end, it originally was meant to bypass cities. But city planners got wind of that, and connected the cities. Most cities have experienced many commuters making longer drives of greater distances over time: people keep moving out. But after the first housing development on Long Island, commuting seems more and more natural.

There used to a be a railroad that ran from Chicago to Minneapolis in 400 minutes. Which is how part of that route, when turned into a bicycle path, got the name "400". Bing maps tells me that is now a 352 minute drive. Throw in a couple of rest stops, and that's about 400 minutes. Since we don't have high speed rail in this country, recreating a business which went bankrupt years ago is silly.

By the way: air transportation as an industry is pretty much a non-profit venture. Since the inception of commercial airlines, their losses pretty much equal their profits. Government subsidies for airports, air traffic control and security support that industry. So, basically it comes down to "What do we want to subsidize?" I think most people prefer having their cars, thank you. I do.

Mass transit is a losing venture everywhere. But think of it this way: If we bribe people with mass transit they won't clog up the roads with their cars. Imagine New York City without the subway. People would have cars and taxis and buses. Well, that would be more of a mess than they already have. They subsidize the subway to reduce congestion on streets and in parking lots. It's a trade off. But I don't want to subsidize expensive trains.

That it needs a government program is prima facie evidence that the high speed rail program does not make economic sense.

The transcontinental railroad didn't make economic sense either. The United States had to sweeten the deal further with the gift of 175 million acres of land -- an area bigger than the state of Texas.

for the life of me I can't see why you are so hung up passenger trains.

Constructing a rail line between Madison and Milwaukee for trains that can't even go as fast as they did in the thirties seems worse than useless. But this is your Congress at work -- Congress appropriated the money for trains and on trains shall it be spent.

Imagine if Wisconsin had decided to spend the I-94 money on commuter rail, back in the 50s. Would that have flown?

If government subsidies for transportation are OK if they make travel faster, then the argument against building a 90mph train fails. Hoist by his own petard.

The transcontinental railroad changed the travel time from the central US to California from 4 weeks to 8 days, an acceleration factor of 350%. The acceleration factor of a 90 mph train from a 70 mph car is 30%. And that is very generous, because it doesn't take into account the travel to and from stations.